- Status
T
TheLittleLady
Guest
Thing is, the Church defines scandal in a different way than the world does.
The world, and most people in it, define scandal as something that causes one to “clutch the pearls” and be shocked or indignant.
The Church defines scandal in the CCC 2284 Scandal is an attitude or behavior which leads another to do evil. The person who gives scandal becomes his neighbor’s tempter. He damages virtue and integrity; he may even draw his brother into spiritual death. Scandal is a grave offense if by deed or omission another is deliberately led into a grave offense.
So, unless the original poster is a public figure where their attending the wedding will lead others into gay marriage or tempt other people to become gay, this is a pastoral matter that should be decided by the original poster and his spouse and their pastor.
The world, and most people in it, define scandal as something that causes one to “clutch the pearls” and be shocked or indignant.
The Church defines scandal in the CCC 2284 Scandal is an attitude or behavior which leads another to do evil. The person who gives scandal becomes his neighbor’s tempter. He damages virtue and integrity; he may even draw his brother into spiritual death. Scandal is a grave offense if by deed or omission another is deliberately led into a grave offense.
So, unless the original poster is a public figure where their attending the wedding will lead others into gay marriage or tempt other people to become gay, this is a pastoral matter that should be decided by the original poster and his spouse and their pastor.
B
BlackFriar
Guest
You miss the point.
The point is that the Church can and always has allowed greater legislated disorders in the State than within the Church. When States are no longer Christian then Christians must accept the difference in mores between the two institutions will increase accordingly.
The second point is that many of those who live in irregular situations accepted by secular society may not be sinning at all but may still be graced before God. As Pope Francis taught in his recent Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia.
The Church’s role then is to be a minority leaven to the rest of society - as was the case in the Early Church before Christendom was established. One cannot be a leaven if one is busy disowning the rest of society starting with our own children.
The point is that the Church can and always has allowed greater legislated disorders in the State than within the Church. When States are no longer Christian then Christians must accept the difference in mores between the two institutions will increase accordingly.
The second point is that many of those who live in irregular situations accepted by secular society may not be sinning at all but may still be graced before God. As Pope Francis taught in his recent Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia.
The Church’s role then is to be a minority leaven to the rest of society - as was the case in the Early Church before Christendom was established. One cannot be a leaven if one is busy disowning the rest of society starting with our own children.
Last edited:
Well no…I’m pretty sure that you don’t have to be a public figure to cause scandal. There is nothing in that quote to suggest that has to be the case. It’s the fact that you are seen to be celebrating something sinful which is actually the scandal, not the exposure that it gets.
Also check out this article by Michelle Arnold:
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/to-attend-or-not-to-attend
So what? We should accept the norm in society just because it is that?
Well they’d be “objectively” sinning. Their culpability is just less. I don’t think Pope Francis was justifying sin.
There’s a difference between “disowning your child” and not celebrating the gay marriage of your child.
Going by your logic, it would be ok for Christians to participate in the various barbaric entertainments of Ancient Rome “because it’s the done thing”.
You forget that being a Christian was also always about doing the hard thing and going against the grain.
Last edited:
B
BlackFriar
Guest
Yes, this is what the Church teaches and actually does at times when it is judged more prudent to do so.
You are mistaken, there is no such thing as “objective” sin, only subjective actual personal sin though lay persons often speak this way. True sin, strictly speaking, is a personal act.
Even “Original Sin” is poorly named (as the Catechism explicitly states) because such sin is not personal.
However we do correctly speak of objective “grave matter” or objectively disordered acts.
These acts are not true sins unless the further two conditions mentioned in the CCC are fulfilled.
Yes that is a prudential judgement not a philosophical fact.
Just like condoning homosexual acts and attending the gay marriage of your child.
And may I suggest you forget that martyrs are such not by their sacrifices but by their love.
The sacrifice being aske here may well be to attend their child’s invitation.
T
TheLittleLady
Guest
I’m sure Ms Arnold is a smart person, she is not an official spokesperson for the Church. She provided an opinion.
Objective evil then. They would be taking part in something that is “objectively evil”.
I don’t believe the Church teaches that. It might be the case that we must tolerate the way that society is, but we are not, as Catholics, called to sit back and just accept evils in society.
I would say that celebrating the gay marriage is condoning homosexual acts.
B
BlackFriar
Guest
Correct.
And there is a 1000 years of Catholic theology justifying how we may often “cooperate in the evil” (that’s the technical expression you are looking for) of others whether it be buying over cheap Chinese imported clothing (which deep down we all know is produced by sweated labour) or good Catholic wives being allowed to have sex with their sincerely condomised non Catholic husbands.
You are entitled to your prudential views on this matter.
But as its not your child, and you cannot know all the circumstances of this particular case, I suggest the prudential decision of the actual parents could well be different.
Last edited:
She already stated her prudential judgement was theat they would not attend. I merely supported that. I’d have no problem with going for dinner as that doesn’t directly celebrate their relationship.
While the Church does allow, in some cases, cooperation in the evil of others, I think you may be overstating the amount of leeway that is allowed.
S
SnowRose
Guest
I nearly snorted coffee up my nose at your phrasing. ”Sincerely condomised” made my morning!
F
Fmarion
Guest
You are hitting it ‘out of the park’. Solid Catholic answers.
B
BlackFriar
Guest
It is not a matter of overstating or understating.BlackFriar:
She already stated her prudential judgement was theat they would not attend. I merely supported that. I’d have no problem with going for dinner as that doesn’t directly celebrate their relationship.
While the Church does allow, in some cases, cooperation in the evil of others, I think you may be overstating the amount of leeway that is allowed.
One either accepts its a prudential decision or its a black and white perennial doctrine.
There is no cast iron link between condoning homosexual acts and attending a civil union of ones own daughter.
It is clear to me from the rather stark public reversals of the Church’s recent public history in the last 200 years on similar lost causes and irregularities that such decisions are political and disciplinary not doctrinal. You appear to agree in principle.
The question therefore simply devolves down to a prudential decision where sincere and intelligent Catholics may legitimately come to different conclusions with the same scenario.
To keep pretending there is still some objective single correct answer sitting in the sky above us for all to see and agree on is silly.
If my assessment of the situation told me that my daughter would likely conclude she is disowned by us her parents not coming and would likely never recover from that view there is no way that I would not attend the service. I would not care what the local bishop, you or anyone else might think on the matter. That is just basic Christianity and if people don’t get this then I suggest one’s reason’s for being Catholic are limited and one will reap what one sows accordingly. And God would likely weep also.
But that’s just me.
I learnt very early on in my pastoral career not to wholly accept what people say in their opening lines at face value. On delicate topics most people test the waters and hedge their bets in public for fear of vocal conservatives don’t they? Its a bit like the “my friend has this problem…” opening line.
Last edited:
B
BlackFriar
Guest
I must confess its not original!
S
SnowRose
Guest
That’s fine. You brightened my day, and that’s valuable in and of itself.
Prudential judgement is useless without a judgement formed in light of Church teaching. You don’t need to disown the daughter to not attend her “wedding”. It’s a false compassion to go along to something for fear of offending the person, when in your heart, you fundamentally disagree with that person’s decision to live a certain way.
Your idea that the parents couldn’t possibly miss the ceremony is actually giving the ceremony a status equal to marriage, which is the whole problem with attending. That’s where scandal comes in, if we legitimise certain things by co-operating with them, over time people accept them, and think we Catholics accept them too. That also undermines the integrity of actual marriage in society.
Unfortunately, your attitude is part of the problem. Catholics treating these things an inevitable is not helping.
Your idea that the parents couldn’t possibly miss the ceremony is actually giving the ceremony a status equal to marriage, which is the whole problem with attending. That’s where scandal comes in, if we legitimise certain things by co-operating with them, over time people accept them, and think we Catholics accept them too. That also undermines the integrity of actual marriage in society.
Unfortunately, your attitude is part of the problem. Catholics treating these things an inevitable is not helping.
B
BlackFriar
Guest
You seem incapable of taking a balanced view of what I actually said but must pull this issue to only one of two all or nothing binary possibilities.
What I fairly clearly stated was that it is a prudential case by case judgement as to what the consequences of not attending may be for the daughter. You seem to be asserting that I stated it is always and everywhere the case they will feel disowned. I said no such thing.
I said it was a possibility and the best person to decide the matter, strangely, are the parents. Not the Pope, not the bishop, not the perennial teaching of the Church.
If parents prudentially judge that their relationship with their child would be irreparably damaged by not attending due to her resentment then one does not need to be a rocket scientist to judge that as a serious obstacle to being a Christian “leaven” to their daughter going forward.
In such a case standard cooperation in evil principles (which legitimately include a proportionality weighing up of likely good outcomes versus bad outcomes) would likely allow attendance even in the face of risk of some scandal to the immature.
I didn’t say “couldn’t possibly” at all did I?
I in fact implied “possibly could”.
Why is it that “cultural Catholics” often don’t get it that scandal is not an absolute evil and is permitted in some situations if the usual principles are respected
.Jesus, the model Catholic, scandalised “cultural Jews” a lot if you care to remember.
I suggest a reread of this one may be helpful for yours:
http://stannchurch-stl.org/do-you-ever-feel-like-the-older-brother-in-the-prodigal-son-story/
Last edited:
No. I am just countering your wishy washy interpretation of the situation with the actual fact that there are certain things you shouldn’t co-operate in.
I mean, would you also go to the wedding if your daughter had left her first (valid) marriage and just shacked up with another man.
Ah the common “you’re an uncharitable/uncompassionate/uncaring person.” Usually goes hand in hand with being called “right wing” or “traditionalist”.
- Status